Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Samir Kumaar Modi - Petitioner
Versus
Nirmala Bagri - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6012 of 2025 & CRL.M.A. 25570 of 2025, CRL.M.C. 6013 of 2025 & CRL.M.A. 25572 of 2025
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Simran Lakhwinder Singh, Mr. Toyesh Tewari, Mr. Agastya Sen and Mr. Sharya Mittal.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma and Mr. Mohit Siwach.
Reporting the contents of a police complaint or criminal report in the public domain does not constitute defamation if the report is fair and accurate, without distortion. Such accusations, when made in good faith to lawful authorities, are further protected under statutory exceptions to the law of defamation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 499 and 500 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 200, 203 and 204 - Criminal defamation - Reporting contents of a police complaint or a criminal report - Whether such reporting constitutes defamation - Exception 8 of Section 499 protecting accusations made in good faith to lawful authority - Reporting of documents in the public domain is protected as part of freedom of speech and expression. (Paras 37, 39, 41, 47)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Summoning of accused - Magistrate must apply judicial mind to check sufficiency of material - If allegations disclose a complete defence under statutory exceptions, complaint should be dismissed at the threshold to prevent frivolous litigation. (Paras 43, 60)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after being allegedly assaulted, filed a complaint with law enforcement officials which resulted in an official criminal report. Media houses published articles covering the incident, which included verbatim extracts from the said complaint. Certain individuals identified as board members alleged that these news reports constituted defamation against them. Lower courts disagreed on whether to summon the petitioner for these allegations, leading to the current challenge.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the news reports were a faithful reproduction of a formal police complaint. Since the registration of such complaints is a matter of public interest, reporting these facts without distortion does not constitute an intentional imputation harming reputation. Therefore, the essential elements of defamation were not met.
Issues: Whether verbatim reporting of a police complaint qualifies as criminal defamation and whether the initiation of defamation proceedings in response to a police report constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The reporting of contents of a police complaint or criminal report that exists in the public domain is privileged, provided the account is fair and accurate. Furthermore, accusations made to law enforcement for the purpose of seeking legal redress are protected under statutory exceptions. Defamation law cannot be used as a counter-blast to civil or criminal proceedings already instituted by the petitioner in good faith.
Result: Petitions allowed; summoning orders set aside and proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the fir and defamation complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the sustainability of defamation proceedings as a counterblast to an fir. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. analysis of the alleged defamatory content's origin, determining it as a reproduction of a formal police complaint. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. applicability of exception 8 of section 499 ipc and the privilege attached to reporting content found in public police records. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 5. conclusion that reproducing police-filed allegations in reporting does not constitute criminal defamation, justifying the quashing of summons. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Index to the Judgment
| FACTUAL BACKGROUND |
| RIVAL CONTENTIONS |
| ANALYSIS & FINDINGS |
| A. Grievance of the Complainants |
| B. The Alleged Defamatory News Articles |
| C. Analysing the Alleged Defamatory Material |
| D. FIR stood registered on the complaint of the Petitioner |
| E. Reporting of contents of a police complaint/FIR by news agencies viz. offence of defamation |
| F. Exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC |
| G. Whether the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside? |
| H. Conclusion |
1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall be disposing of two connected petitions preferred by the petitioner, inasmuch as although they assail orders passed in two different complaint cases, the contents of the orders and the factual matrix of the dispute are the same.
2. As set out in the petitions, the petitioner is a businessman, who served as the Executive Director of Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [hereafter ‘GPIL’] from January 1994 until September 2024. The respondents herein had preferred separate criminal complaints under Sections 190(1)(a) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’], read with Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’], i.e., Ct. Case No. 4138/2024 filed by respondent Atul Kumar Gupta and Ct. Case No. 4139/2024 filed by respondent Nirmala Bagri.
3. The said complaints were dismissed vide separate but identical orders dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Magistrate’]. In revision petitions preferred by the respondents, i.e., Crl. Revision No. 353/2025 filed by respondent Nirmala Bagri and Crl. Revision No. 354/2025 filed by respondent Atul Kumar Gupta, the learned ASJ-02, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Sessions Court’] passed separate but identical impugned orders dated 14.08.2025, whereby the orders of the learned Magistrate were set aside and the revisions were allowed. The learned Magistrate was also directed to summon the present accused. In view thereof, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons to the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 18.08.2025.
4. The petitioner thus seeks to assail the impugned orders dated 14.08.2025 and 18.08.2025.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 30.05.2024, meetings of the Audit Committee and Board of Directors of GPIL were held at the company's office in Jasola, Delhi. The petitioner, being a Director and invitee, had arrived to attend the meetings. At the moment of entry to the boardroom, the personal security officer of one Mrs. Bina Modi (the petitioner's mother), allegedly acting on her instructions, had obstructed his entry and had assaulted him, causing a fracture to his right index finger. Thereafter, the petitioner was immediately taken to Apollo Hospital, where the MLC confirmed the fracture. Pursuant thereto, on 31.05.2024, the petitioner had lodged a written complaint at Police Station Sarita Vihar. Based on the complaint, MLC, and CCTV footage, an FIR bearing No. 219/2024 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 a
